Jump to content

Talk:Lex Fridman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humanophage (talk | contribs) at 07:55, 6 March 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Neutral point of view

This article currently doesn't represent a neutral point of view.


I understand that there is valid critique of Fridman, his autopilot study at MIT, and his podcast. I don't suggest removing this critique.


I suggest re organizing the information so that it represents a neutral point of view.


There is a focus on the timeline of Fridman's study, Elon Musk's reaction to that study, Fridman's interview with Musk, and then an increase in popularity of Fridman's podcast. If there are reliable sources that show that connection, then it should certainly be included.


The imbalance comes from the inclusion of critique by Missy Cummings, Anima Anandkumar, and other anonymous sources in the MIT section of the article.

The criticism placed in this section takes away the balanced representation of the facts of Fridman's career at MIT.


I suggest this critique be moved to the "Reception" section, where it can be seen not as an aspect of Fridman's career at MIT, but instead as the reception of Fridman's career at MIT.



Uhhhum (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t how the neutrality policy works. Also, you need to declare if you have some kind of conflict of interest with Lex Fridman. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dont have any conflict of interest with Fridman.
im not trying to "soapbox" or "advocate" for this person or his podcast, as you suggested about me earlier. im trying to make edits that will add neutrality to the article.
you write:
"That isn’t how the neutrality policy works."
can you please continue to discuss this with me?
do you see the balance issues that im bringing up? do you understand why im interpreting this article as unbalanced and lacking a neutral point of view? Uhhhum (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I don’t see how it is unbalanced. The reliable sources are clear that a) his Tesla study was controversial and critiqued by peers and b) that the study played an important role in him becoming famous. How a study is received by peers doesn’t need a separate section on a BLP. It is common practice to put things in chronological order, which means reporting academic work in the order it occurred, and how it was received by peers. The reception of the study is a part of his career/work at MIT. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the reception of the study belongs in the MIT section, then maybe we need to re organize information in the Reception section.
For instance, this sentence:
In contrast, his former colleague Sertac Karaman, LIDS's director, stated: "Dr. Fridman has been a research scientist at MIT LIDS and in our research group. I have known him for many years, and been very impressed by his ideas and his research accomplishments."
Does that belong in the MIT section instead?
There's also an overdependence on the Business Insider source.
You say:
The reliable sources are clear that a) his Tesla study was controversial and critiqued by peers and b) that the study played an important role in him becoming famous.
But there's only one source that makes that connection: the Business Insider source. Uhhhum (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I have serious reservations about your intentions here, and your history of white washing. Youre complaining about a lack of sources but it is you who deleted reliable source content which hasn’t been restored. Example here. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well I've taken a step back from making any further edits on this page because of my history.
That source and some of the content was restored. I can't find the example and a link, but that source by Haretz was restored and later removed by a different editor. Look it up if you want, Im not myself because I'm on my phone and don't have time for this.
My intentions have always been to add balance to what I saw as an imbalanced, poorly structured article.
I've made additions, such as adding the personal life section, or the critique from N Robinson of Current Affairs.
What I learned from the WP links you sent me was that "burden of proof" for something included on an article is the responsibility of the editor who wants to include it.
You seem to want to include this narrative that, to put it simply, Fridman wanted fame, did a tesla-related study to get Elon Musk's attention, was taken in by Musk and made famous for his efforts on the autopilot study... and I just don't see any evidence of these connection beyond the Business Insider source. This entire theory about Fridman is taken from a single source and is dominating a significant section of this article, so I think it's worthy of examination/discussion. I also think that the burden is on you to "prove it", however I'm going to stop engaging with you so it's up to other editors to continue or stop this discussion.
I'm not involving myself here anymore.
I'll now step back completely and cease my involvement on this page.
Take care all. Uhhhum (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof requires that what is written is stated in the reliable sources. It is. Wikipedia does not require that pages be 50% praise and 50% critique. If the reliable sources include a lot of critique, then the Wikipedia articles will often feature it. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never clicked on one of these 'talk' sections before, but did today as this article seemed so biased and made no sense.
There's no talk of his podcast or guests or rise at all, it reads like he did the autopilot thing and he was suddenly a youtube hit.
The guys had hundreds and hundreds of people on there, I can't grasp why Musk is such a focus. Sacredteal (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can re-order it to make the study and podcasting chronological. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I did actually advise you to ask on WP:BLPN if you have concerns about the article. You can do that. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fridman made a bit of a mention of this when talking about his Wikipedia article on his podcast. here is the episode, at 22:00 onwards, for ideas on what could be improved. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the "controversial" text from the WP:LEAD per WP:NOCRIT and also started to cleanup the reception section, then noticed it seems to have a single source. Do we have others than this business insider junk? We are going to need a better source for this than business insider, see WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. Do not re-add this content without consensus here or take to WP:RSN if you like, per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPREMOVE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jtbobwaysf, nocrit is an essay, not an editing guideline. The source itself describes the study as "controversial", meaning this label is acceptable. However, I have rephrased it so it can be read in the body. We do not "need" a better source as business insider is not considered unreliable. Rather, it is evaluated on a case by case basis (edit: there is actually a WP:RS that describes it as a "controversial study"). The author of the BI piece is a senior correspondent at Insider, which itself is an WP:RS so we can be confident this piece is acceptable. You also appear to misunderstand what consensus means. Consensus is determined based on the merits of the arguments, not vote count. You also misunderstand BLPREMOVE and guidelines. This material is absolutely not contentious. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see you re-added the controversial word to the WP:LEAD. As for WP:BUSINESSINSIDER it is not an RS for this type of content. Feel free to open an WP:RSN and we can discuss there. If you simply re-add the content you will be in violation of WP:BLPREMOVE Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jtbobwaysf, no I did not restore the word "controversial" to the lead. Also it is described as a "controversial study" in this reliable source. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    by the way, can you please clarify which bullet point of WP:BLPREMOVE applies here? I am not seeing it. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I may have conflated two issues in my explanation. I have struck the lead comment. In regards to this edit you have restored controversial and disputed content where I have explained it violates #1 bullet of WP:BLPREMOVE says "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced;" WP:BUSINESSINSIDER says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher" which should tell you clearly that adding content that is contentious and is sourced by BI, is not ok. Then you go on to revert that content back on to the article, in violation of BLPRESTORE and continue to argue your point here, and argue on your talk page here that is it my ONUS to instead put on BLPN instead. You seem to be confused about ONUS here and the policy. I only jumped in on this as I see another editor Uhhhum raising NPOV claims, and then I saw that the most non-NPOV comments are coming from a junk source and you are reverting to re-add that to the article. Becoming clear yet? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When a source has no consensus, it does not mean it must be removed: see WP:MREL. This particular Insider article appears to cross over between the tech and the culture sections on Insider, and the source is a WP:RS on culture. This isn't syndicated content (written by a contributor), which is what the perennial sources page discusses. It is written by a senior correspondent at Insider, so the work is subject to a far higher standard of editorial. This article is clearly not a "junk" source. The author is well known for high profile articles on tech leaders, and she spoke to a wide range of experts for the article. I opened a discussion here where Hemiauchenia agreed the source is absolutely reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Business Insider on Lex Fridman.
    I also find it questionable to remove content that includes quotes from notable scientists like Lior Pachter. This isn't some random person critiquing Lex's work. So nope, sources like this need to be evaluated on a case by case basis and it seems pretty clear to myself and another experienced editor that the source is both reliable and worth citing.
    Zenomonoz (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work, I'd be more inclined for inclusion based on what you've added. I think that we need to be more careful about the "according to research experts" which we really should have attributed. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal / vandalism

Due to the recent number of IP/new editors who are attempting to remove reliable critique of Lex, and Lex's tweet which references the wikipedia page, I have requested increased protection for the page, currently pending.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED nor is it a WP:SOAPBOX. The critique comes from individuals with credentials. Complaining about your Wikipedia article only creates a streisand effect. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what vandalism is, @Zenomonoz. If people remove sourced content without comment, you won't be at fault for reverting but since it's a BLP, when you do so, you must seriously consider whether what was removed contained BLP issues. The subjects of BLPs are afforded protections and they should be taken seriously when they object to how we cover them. You should also invite those editors to discuss their concerns on the talk page, and advise them that offwiki coordination is not allowed. It's not improbable that multiple individuals come in independently after a public event without there being any coordination, so reasonable amount of good faith ought to be extended as well. They could still be interested in working within Wikipedia guidelines and with some help, may help improve the article, and even go on to become regular editors. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool illegitimate blanking is a listed form of vandalism on WP:VANDAL, so that is what vandalism is. I do not have to "seriously consider" these repeated attempts to remove content again and again given the source itself was already discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and these users do not provide any convincing argument. "They could still be interested in working within Wikipedia guidelines and with some help" – did I say otherwise? Did I say they should be banned? No, I said I have requested protection which is a standard procedure in cases like this. IP editors can still make requests on the talk page. There is a reason that controversial articles often do not allow brand new editors to edit. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing you didn't read the second paragraph. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Business_Insider_on_Lex_Fridman This has already been resolved. The BI article has been deemed a usable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't make it vandalism, or any content citing it beyond challenge. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not including an edit summary when blanking, is vandalism. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Please make a habit of reading policy pages, especially when engaging in arguments over them. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a platform for "reliable critique". The "reception" section of the article should be removed as it does not fulfill the function of providing neutral information. Devoting a large portion of an article about a person to the opinions expressed about the person qualifies as gossip. The articles for other prominent controversial media figures do not contain sections involving "reception". BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you know what Wikipedia is for if you've never edited it before? This kind of stuff is standard in Wikipedia biographies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh no, Wikipedia:Criticism#"Reception" type section: An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Wikipedia articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. Suitable section titles, depending on case, include: "Reception Zenomonoz (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section." BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. It isn't dedicated to negative material, it is dedicated to reception (which includes praise). It's just that the sources include a lot of critique. "Sections dedicated to negative material" is in reference to BLPS in which a user might attempt to create a section exclusively about critique (even when reliable sources include lots of priase) Zenomonoz (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone – the section includes both critique and praise, and it's also coming from reputable scholars, not randoms. Pretty standard on BLPs, especially for 'academic' figures. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reception section violates NPOV. Have a look at the Jordan Peterson article, there is no reception section, presumably because it became/would have become a gossip section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So? The Jordan Peterson article is formatted to weave some reception of him through the article. E.g. the "influences" section there is some of it. We also don't format this article based upon the Peterson article (or any other). "There is no reception section, presumably because it became/would have become a gossip section" well if there are WP:RS with peer commentary on Peterson (praise or critique), they can certainly be included on the Peterson article. Reception is often more logical under a separate header rather than weaved through the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the material is presented responsibly or conservatively. The opinions expressed are strong and controversial. I think it is a troll magnet. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't believe the material is presented responsibly or conservatively" – responsibly and conservatively just means to attribute, i.e. X said X, which is done. So yeah.
"The opinions expressed are strong and controversial" – just because you do not like them does not mean they should be removed. The opinions of peers/experts in their respective fields are hardly controversial. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." Praise/criticism is not neutral. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we use the heading "reception", which is acceptable on Wikipedia. Nowhere does the page include the heading 'praise' or 'criticism'... Zenomonoz (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For examples of articles that are "broadly neutral" you may refer to Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Bernie Sanders, - basically any public figure. You will find no sections titled "reception" or anything devoted to what the the media says about them. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I have already linked you an essay page showing that a reception section is acceptable. The Joe Rogan article includes plenty of media commentary on him, the word "misinformation" is included a total of 12 times, and "controversy" 6 times. Different articles can be arranged in different ways.
If you are going to keep arguing about this you are going to end up looking like a WP:SPA and somebody WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. I think you might consider that I have been here a while and I am giving you some constructive feedback. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section is used for books and works of art or when the original article grows to large:
"This approach employs a separate article that includes both positive and negative viewpoints. This approach is often taken when the primary article on a literary topic grows too large and is subject to a content fork."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#%22Reception%22_type_section BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then read the page relevant to biographies of living persons WP:BLP. Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone – which it is. So your argument that critique cannot be included is incorrect.
A large number of new editors like yourself have attempted to raise these kinds of arguments before and they never end up going anywhere. It's not a good look when you show up after Lex's off wiki canvassing. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not presented responsibly or conservatively or in a disinterested tone. For models of how to write an article that fulfills these criteria you may refer to any articles of any public figure. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is presented in a disinterested tone, because the tone refers to what is written in WP:WIKIVOICE, not what other persons said about Lex. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine but since the content itself is inflammatory and occupies roughly 1/3 of the article it is not responsible or conservative and violates the neutrality of the article as a whole, please remove it and integrate criticism in a way that does not violate NPOV. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Criticism is an essay, which means that it is not Wikipedia policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your bias out of people's wiki pages. This is a pathetic article about lex. Just because you sourced "a reliable source" doesn't make it right. It paints a mostly negative picture of him. Most people don't agree with this, even those who may not like lex. Rewrite the page in non-biased manner. 41.81.128.187 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but. If the Wikipedia:Criticism#"Reception" type section section is just to include criticism content and lacks NPOV then it is not reception in anything other than section name, and is rather criticism. If we cant have a section with NPOV, then move the content into other parts of the article. A laundry list of the mainstream media thinking the article subject is bad, is not at all NPOV. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn’t how it works, and it doesn’t “just include criticism content”. It includes positive/indifferent discussion of his work. And even if there were zero sources positively discussing him, that isn’t a reason to exclude critique. It would only be an NPOV if there were positive reception sources but they were purposely not included and not represented. That isn’t happening. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The person who wrote the reception section cherry-picked the contents of the Elizabeth Lopatto article. The article describes Lex's interview style as ideal but this aspect is omitted in the summarization. Here is the full paragraph:
    "Fridman’s podcast is ideal because it has a following among the tech elite, and because Fridman is a softball interviewer. (He couldn’t even get Bezos to divulge how much he curls!) But that’s not the only thing it’s got going for it. Fridman has a close association with Elon Musk — he rocketed to fame on the back of a controversial study of Tesla, followed by an interview with Musk himself."
    This is the problem with dedicating a section to reception aka gossip. It invites this kind of activity. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are using the term ‘ideal’ in a skeptical way. They are suggesting it is ‘ideal’ (for the tech elite) because they will not face much scrutiny from Lex. Also the second part about the ‘controversial study’ is hardly positive, and is already covered under MIT. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that now! I'm not used to reading this type of content! BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tabloid journalism is not allowed.
    "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article isn’t using tabloid sources. So no. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Criticism#"Reception" type section "include both negative and positive assessments." So if we cannot find positive content to put in the section, then the section is misnamed. I would note that in the case of Lex_Fridman#Reception I do note that there seem to be both positive and negative reviews of the article subject, so it seems fine to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the of whether the assessment is neutral positive or negative, this type of source is not allowed. Sometimes it is even hard to tell what the author is saying because in this style of journalism it is the custom to employ a shifty ironical tone to excite strong emotional response!
Please adhere to this standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance
"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
Please inform yourselves as to what tabloid journalism and assess the content, tone and motivations of the sources being used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of Living Persons are held to a higher standard. Tabloid Journalism is not acceptable. The sources being used in the reception article are Tabloid Journalism.

Regardless of whether the of whether the assessment is neutral positive or negative, this type of source is not allowed. Sometimes it is even hard to tell what the author is saying because in this style of journalism it is the custom to employ a shifty ironical tone to excite strong emotional response!

Please adhere to this standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance

"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Please inform yourselves as to what tabloid journalism and assess the content, tone and motivations of the sources being used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but can you read what I have patiently written to you already? The source was already discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard where it was agreed to be reliable/acceptable and it is attributed so there is no issue. Often new editors have some questions, but you have written an excessive number of replies and refused to accept independent input. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just think you need to read the guidelines a bit more clearly. When the source is deemed reliable (which it was) and verifiable (which it is), then it can be used. This does not count as ‘tabloid’ journalism. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia biased...?

I'm not a huge Wikipedia user, but I find myself reading Wikipedia articles often enough, usually after googling a certain figure or event. But I have started to notice Wikipedia articles and stated 'facts' seem to be leaning in a certain direction...


It seems to me that Wikipedia, something trying to emulate an encyclopedia, would try it's utmost to remain as impartial as possible - would ideally refrain, as much as possible, from including editorials or personal opinions; or if unable to refrain, would make sure to include enough of all sides of the issue to maintain its impartiality. This would be the BARE MINIMUM needed to be considered a valid source of information (like an encyclopedia) and not an Editorial. But in this, as well as many other recent articles, there is definitely a left-leaning bias (IMHO).

A simple example - in the list of Lex's interviewees, some more prominent individuals were left out - renowned podcaster Joe Rogan, presidential adviser Jared Kushner, current presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr, to name a few. Yet for some reason Mohamed El-Kurd is included in the list containing authors,professors, leaders of industry, actors, famous entrepreneurs, Prime Ministers and intellectuals.

Why?

Why can't something as ideal as an impartial encyclopedia and source of genuine information - remain just that? 2A00:A041:3CDC:8C00:DC14:DA63:E83E:13BF (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot list everyone who has been on his podcast. Please see this archived discussion; the consensus is to only include guests who have been written about in secondary sources. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia is famously extremely socially left-wing, about on par with Reddit. The typical approach is to have disproportionate amounts of marginal left-wing critiques, usually in the form of either a "reception" or a long rebuttal to some "reception". It is a bit annoying but the word has been out for a long while, so anyone who uses the internet knows it and takes it for what it's worth. The bigger problem is that some naive users might not be aware of it as Wikipedia tries to present itself as neutral, but their numbers are shrinking. Humanophage (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lex_Fridman&oldid=1212125366"